Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I think, in this particular bill, the commencement is something that does require a bit of scrutiny. Because we have a bill which has been through a select committee process, although it was—and I can’t, but the Chair will probably know this better than me—but a shortened committee process. So we did see a significant number of submitters, but we did have a select committee process which did not go on for the full six-month period of time. That’s my recollection, but happy to be corrected.

Tim van de Molen: It’s not a target.

Pardon?

Tim van de Molen: It’s not a target.

Does the member wish to take a call?

Tim van de Molen: Yeah, yeah—sure.

It’s not “Title”, it’s “Commencement”.

Tim van de Molen: Yeah, I’ll take a call.

CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): We’ll carry on with the “Commencement”, please.

The member wishes to take a call on this, so—

CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): I’m sure if he stands, then he may well get one.

I’m happy to yield my time to the member.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you. The member was talking about the time frame in committee, and that it didn’t go for six months. Six months is not a target, and never has been.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you. I appreciate that member, but the thing is, with a complex bill like this, I think the time frame that the select committee took is the important consideration. Because, you know, if we are—thank you to that member, that we are expanding the scope that we’re discussing here. When we’re looking at a good democratic process, and the fact that we’re looking at the commencement date—which is supposed to come into effect in a month—and literally, except for maybe a handful of submitters, major organisations, including the Police themselves, are saying that this is not going to work, that this is going to be impossible to implement. We do not have the right guidance to be able to undertake this work. Part of the reason is that the committee had such a truncated time frame that they weren’t able to do the full consultation and the full discussion that is needed for us to actually have a workable bill.

That is the important consideration of when we’re looking at the commencement, because one month is not going to be enough. We have heard from the Police, we have heard from retailers, we’ve heard from all of those people who say that this is not going to work with a one-month time frame. So I guess, on that, the question to the Minister is: what advice, then, did the Minister get to look at to ensure or to make that one time framework, work? And what advice, if any, has the Minister considered to expand that time frame to further down the track?

Committee of the whole House

I have entered an amendment for this and the grave concern that we have in Te Pāti Māori is concerning the commencement date; right here in the bill, it says: “a month after Royal assent.” However, the concern really is on the capacity and capability right now, but also correct training, ensuring that the police are armed—not armed—but actually have the correct approach to go and do what this bill is asking them to do, which is pretty much move on people who are homeless. So the are question to the Minister is: what operational housing and rights safeguards will exist from day one? And I go back to the fact that, you know, immediate commencement allows coercive powers before training, referral pathways, accommodation capacity, data systems, a whole lot of monitoring that is required. One of the key issues of homelessness, of moving people on, is the fact that there is no credible or existing data. So once you move them on, it creates an even bigger gap.

I will not repeat what has already been said, however when it comes to the commencement of this bill, putting it into action, are the police ready?

That should be a major concern for this House but especially for the members of this House who must represent all their constituents, and homelessness is vast. It’s widespread across Aotearoa, but specifically in Tāmaki-makau-rau—Auckland—where the police have raised grave concerns and are concerned about how this will roll out. The demand or the urges and the consideration for the Minister is to ensure the ducks are lined up, everything is correct, and they’re not going to punish people who are already being punished by being poor.

Committee of the whole House

Mr Chair, thank you. In relation to this question of the commencement, the Act will come into force one month after the Royal assent. If we pass this bill this evening, for example, it will then go off to the Governor-General, the Governor-General will give her assent to it in a timely fashion—it may take two or three days—and then it will be a month after that that it takes effect. I did receive a range of advice on that: it could be one month, it could be two months; it could be one week, it could be two weeks. We fell on one month as an appropriate time to ensure that the police have sufficient time to be prepared for implementing and enforcing this piece of legislation. We have every confidence that the police will be able to do that.

Committee of the whole House

Point of order. I did take a moment to check—I didn’t want to challenge your earlier ruling, but now have a copy of the motion of appointment, or was it actually leave, and I see that the three members, including yourself, were appointed as Temporary Assistant Speakers. In terms of Standing Order 137(4), you clearly are—your appointment is temporary in nature, and therefore, as we proceed in this debate, it’s clear that you are unable to take a closure motion, and your confirmation of that would be appreciated.

Committee of the whole House

Speaking to the point of order. Thank you, Mr Chair. The member is confused in this instance because there are situations where, over the past couple of Parliaments, we’ve had to appoint a temporary Speaker in the middle of a committee stage. The Speaker at the time, or the Chair in the Chair has had to leave for some relief or whatever moment it may require. That is a temporary Speaker, and in that instance, it would be inappropriate for that person to take a closure motion. In this instance, you have been ratified by Parliament—the entire House—to carry out your role, so it’s entirely within your rights to take closure motions.

CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): Thank you very much. The point Mr Van de Molen makes is precisely correct: that in this instance, I am an Assistant Speaker and the Speakers’ rulings give me the jurisdiction to accept closure motions as they come about and I will continue to do so.

Committee of the whole House

Speaking to the point of order, I don’t want to unduly prolong this discussion, but, Mr Chair, if you could refer to the Speaker’s ruling upon which you rely, it would be greatly appreciated so that I don’t need to seek further clarification.

CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): Yep, happy to. Let me talk with the Clerk. Thank you very much, members. The Standing Order is 137(4), which talks about closure motions, and it says, “A temporary Speaker or, in committee, a temporary chairperson may not accept a closure motion.” That’s the point you are trying to make, Mr Webb, but in this case I am an Assistant Speaker, not a temporary Speaker, and we will be proceeding.

Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): Please don’t trifle with me, Mr Webb. I have made my ruling clear.

Committee of the whole House

I know, I won’t—[Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): We’ll just hear it in silence.

The motion appoints you as a temporary—the word in the application for leave, spoken by the Speaker, the leave that was put was for a temporary Assistant Speaker, and the word “temporary” is critical. If, from the Chair, you’re not happy to accept that—and it’s entirely within your domain, and we’ve probably reached the end of this discussion, but, if not, I will move that the Speaker be recalled to rule on this point. If that’s the case, I’m happy to do so.

CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): Under Standing Order 34 as well, temporary Speaker—and this was the case last time I was a temporary Speaker about two months or so ago. That is that, while presiding over the House, any member may take the Chair, which is the case. In this case, I was appointed by the House earlier today. Leave was sought. There were no objections, therefore I am an Assistant Speaker. I will not be taking any more points of order on that matter. I have ruled.

Committee of the whole House

I move, That the Speaker be recalled to determine whether the Chair is a temporary Chair or not.

CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): Is that a point of order, Mr Webb?

That’s a motion.

CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): OK. Members, the question is, That the Speaker be recalled. All those in favour, say aye.

💬 Hon Members: Aye.

CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): To the contrary, no.

💬 Hon Members: No.

CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): Members, by convention, members do not oppose a motion to recall the Speaker—Speaker’s ruling 81/2.

Tim van de Molen: It’s a convention, not a requirement. We have opposed it.

CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): I’ll put the question again. The question is, That the Speaker be recalled.

Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

Speaker Recalled

CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): Mr Speaker, the committee has asked that you be recalled to clarify as to whether I am an Assistant or temporary Speaker and have the ability to accept or decline closure motions when they are put in the committee stage.

💬 SPEAKER: The situation is quite straightforward. The House today appointed you, Tangi Utikere, and Jenny Salesa as Assistant Speakers until the close of play on Saturday, so there is no issue. You have full authority that normally comes with anyone who is acting as Chair of the committee.